/lit/ - Literature

transcendental

so the Copernican revolution was that NOT the earth is the middle of our solar system but the sun... Kant called his transcendental philosophy a copernican revolution... but what he did was the exact opposite of what Copernicus did... he took us into the center again by saying that the things are ordered after our way of perceiving them... NOT that our perception is ordered after the things we perceive... so what the fuck is this middle age world view he developed ?

>>22829279
>proceeds to bloat this paragraph into the next 100 pages
based Kant

>>22828973

Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed sirs, patrons and guests of /lit/, lovers of wisdom, real human beings wherever you are, and also all spirits, gods, brutes, and aliens, please join me on this day in affirming the Kant Hate Club Credo:


I believe that there is no a priori synthesis.
I believe that there is no definite or known limit to what I can cognize.
I believe that there are no pure concepts.
I believe that every intuition can be deconstructed into constituent cognitions.
I believe that there are no apodictic judgements.
I believe that the form is not prior to the cognition.
I believe that metaphysics goes beyond mere logic.
I believe that the German tongue is suffused with evil.
I believe that autism is a repulsive disease.
I believe that Kant ruined philosophy.
I believe that Marxism and Hegelianism are the degenerate spawn of the Kantian protoplasm.
I believe that "Immanuel" should be spelled "Emanuel" and that "Kant" should be pronounced "Can't".
I believe that Kant practiced psychic vampirism on his manservants and dinner guests.
I believe that Kant was a dark magician and agent of the Kali Yuga.
I believe that if Kant were never born, I would be happy.

I hate Kant. Kant is a charlatan LARPing as a philosopher. The injunction of reason is to always get behind your own representations, the fact is that we are not limited except accidentally in what we can represent, so to stop our investigation at pure intuitions and transcendental apperception and say we cannot break these things down and get behind them is essentially to murder philosophy, to murder investigation, to murder inquiry in its cradle. This is why I hate Kant, because Kant hates philosophy and therefore Kant hates me. Let's examine Kant's philosophy, shall we? The pure intuitions must exist. Why must they exist? Because otherwise there is no source of synthetic a priori knowledge. This is Kant's entire assumption. Kant does not prove that synthetic a prior knowledge exists, he assumes it, and he constructs his entire philosophy in order to "explain" this. There is no basis to assume that pure intuitions exist if you don't think that there must be synthetic a prior knowledge because mathematics is apodictic. Therefore, Kant does not refute the empiricists he presume induction to be the basis of all knowledge (i.e. who assume that all synthetic knowledge is a posteriori) he merely assumes they are incorrect from the outset. There must, he thinks, be judgements that are not the result of a previous inference, i.e. a prior judgements generated by the confluence of pure understanding and pure sensibility, and why? because otherwise there isn't certain knowledge, because otherwise there is no a priori synthesis, in other words, because otherwise Kant's insipid dogmatism is destroyed. People think that I merely "accuse" Kant of being a dogmatist, but the fact is that all he is a dogmatist, his entire philosophy is based a priori on being a dogmatist, and there is no Kantian philosophy without dogmatism. Kant is a complete fucking moron and his entire philosophy is merely a game of "what is the most absurd argument I can concoct to justify my dogmatism"? Have any of you ever actually thought about what Kant's "proof" of causality actually is? It essentially says that, because events are ordered in time, the pure understanding must have ordered them in time (because time is ideal, because mathematics is apodictic and therefore it can't be an inhering property of external objects, since Kant's literally only argument to refute the time-realists is that they can't explain why math is apodictic (i.e. they can't preserve the Kantian dogmatic spirit)), and therefore it must have done so according to some rule or some condition, hence causality is real. If you think about this argument for more than five seconds you quickly realize that Kant was the most illogical moronic "philosopher" in history. (character limit)....

Where do duties come from? What sustains them? What makes them true?
>You borrowed 100$ from me so you have the duty to repay me.
Where? Why? Why can't I decide that I have a duty never to repay my loans?

Not just asking for Kant but in general.

tl;dr how do you justify demanding others to do their duty
Can you rec some literature on duties and deontology?

Jea uh space and time are NOT things in themselves... they are nothing but our perception of things... laying a priori within us...

And Jea uh I am not even moving through time and space when I walk through my room... I mean... not really... as there is no space and time in the real reality outside of us...

How the fuck did he got away with this ?

I want to read Critique of Pure Reason but I want to be fully prepared. What texts should I read beforehand to help me understand Kant

>undermines reason
>destroys man's ability to know himself
>destroys man's ability to know the world
>plunges the world into a inescapable blood-soaked dark age of superstitious irrationalism

How do we, either as a species, or, individually, break free from the Kantian nightmare?

>>22252191
NOOOOOOOOO

Since the brain creates the categories that we perceive the world through then the brain must be the thing in itself.

>refutes natural theology
Heh, nothing personal kid.

Tell me about Kant. Why does he have such a big head?

>>21508824
There is no benefit. To be good is your plight. It is cast upon you. You know right and you know wrong. Do right. Do not wrong. Period. The end.

At Königsberg in the 18th century, the philosophy faculty awarded only the magister degree, while the three higher faculties awarded the doctor degree; it was only towards the end of the century that we also find people being awarded doctorates in philosophy, coinciding with the gradual erasure of the distinction between the higher and lower faculties.[3] This distinction appears to have turned on the function of the faculty: the higher faculties were considered professional programs for the production of pastors, lawyers, and physicians, and these were Doctors — having learned, they were ready to practice their arts. In the wake of the increased attention given to primary and secondary education, the philosophy faculty was gradually professionalized by inheriting the task of creating a professional class of school teachers, who hitherto had been pastors and cantors employed at some church, or else theology graduates waiting for a pastoral position. Once this educational reform got underway, the philosophy faculty was seen not merely as preparing students for the three higher faculties, but as preparing professionals of their own: thus the doctorate in philosophy [Bornhak 1900, 138-39].

Of course, most students at the university did not graduate at all, instead attending those courses they thought most helpful to their careers, with three years being the normal period of study. Of those graduating, most would do something other than teach at a university, working instead as pastors or church officials, lawyers, physicians, or whatever. The large majority of magisters were theology students [Bornhak 1900, 90].

Where tf is kantposter? I miss the schizo kant posts.

>the rule that all should follow is this: Act only in ways which you can will become universal laws
>but don’t act because you want something to be a universal law, that’s not moral good, moral good is only if someone acts from principle for the principle’s sake
Was it autism?

What exactly is a moral duty?

Does anyone else find it maddening and perplexing that the most influential philosopher in modern history is also one of the most unreadable philosophers in history? I've read quite a bit of philosophy at this stage, from the Greeks to the Scholastics to the rationalists and empiricists and yet Kant is just on an ascended plane of unreadability. I've returned to him so many times over the years but it just never gets any easier. I regularly find myself reading along and thinking I have some idea of what he's talking about, then getting to the end of the chapter and not being able to summarize anything I just read. Often paragraphs read like machine translated nonsense in which a single sentence on an entire page might make sense. It feels like I've been building up to tackle Kant for years but I just can't do it.
>Inb4 brainlet

Applied Kantian Ethics just has the outcome of a weak and obedient underclass in servitude to a egoistic upperclass. It only restrains the people that believe in it while leaving them at the mercy of those who defy or exploit it. Seems fitting he'd be among the most famous philosophical names in the modern west.

>He reconciled the debate between empiricists and rationalists by legitimizing metaphysics via transcendental philosophy and inquiring about the basis of synthetic a priori knowledge
So?

>>20273791
>tfw when you're dissappointed in post kantian philosophy

All things Kant all the time. Drop your Kant questions, concerns, and comments here.